247 replies to this topic

[BaseJester]

Ron Paul is the guest on Leno now.

[LongLiveYorke]

Oh, yeah, I'm really liking the direction of this thread lately

[Balloon guy]

strategy, on Friday, December 16th, 2011, 6:42 PM, said:

hemadhonestly don't understand the people who so passionately hate bernanke. I'm not even making the claim that his policies have helped, because lol @ trying to prove that, but let's just start with how a rather huge number of people have so far missed the mark about the impact we were supposed to see from the tripling of the fed's balance sheet. that position is not just a ron paul one... watch a second or two of fox news, it's the right's go-to talking point, and I find that baffling.

I agree that the results of the 2008 fiasco were not a plan, the people in charge making decision were not evil, or even fully responsible.The politicians started pretty much every ball rolling, either pushing bad loans, pressuring to keep interest rates low, spending like no tomorrow etc.The Goldman Sachs-type guys exploited things to personally gain, then dumped it off.The Fed guys reacted late, made decisions based on fear/conventional wisdom that didn't turn out so good.To place the blame on anyone one person or group is not possible.But I would still be cool watching a bunch of financial guys get thrown in jail. They kind of made it worse than it had to be by a factor of a million.My biggest worry is that nothing will be learned from this, because it's so easy for everyone to blame everyone else and think what they did was fine.That's why this story made me happy20 more stories like this would be a good start.

[LongLiveYorke]

ahosang, on Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 10:33 AM, said:

Dumb cunts who are silly enough to join FCP in 2011 shouldn't really be allowed to post in this section.

Right, cause you're doing such a great job, as evidenced by the above.

[BaseJester]

Balloon guy, on Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 10:58 AM, said:

My biggest worry is that nothing will be learned from this, because it's so easy for everyone to blame everyone else and think what they did was fine.

I fear that nothing will be learned, too, even from the citizens with no direct involvement. People like myself will have their opinion confirmed that the problem is that the government meddled in the housing market and gambled with other people's money, and therefore the solution is less government involvement. Other people will have their opinion confirmed that the problem is unfettered capitalism will look for more government involvement to regulate the investments.

[BaseJester]

BaseJester, on Friday, December 16th, 2011, 11:44 PM, said:

Ron Paul is the guest on Leno now.

[mk]

brvheart, on Friday, December 16th, 2011, 10:26 PM, said:

You stated Ron Paul's motivations, based on nothing, and then attacked the shit out of them.Ron Paul's hatred of the fed is a lot broader than just the fact that they aren't elected. I mean, he wrote an entire book on the subject, and I'm pretty sure page one didn't say, "because they aren't elected", followed by a bunch of blank pages.

Fine. It's certainly a major problem of his, though, yes, that he believes it's unconstitutional? We can agree on this?His other issues (none of which you've actually mentioned or thought to bring into any kind of discussion) include:1. Inflation and 'debasing' of the currency are disastrous for the economyIf the last 100 years of the U.S. economy, i.e. the broadest expansion of growth and employment in the history of the world resulting in the unquestionable global economic dominance of our country = disaster one really must wonder what results Ron Paul seeks to achieve. Do you agree with him that the U.S. economy since the creation of the Fed has been a disaster? Or do you think it's something that's still coming and we have to wait another hundred years or so? I'm never sure. Also, fiscal policy plays a major role in the nation's balance sheet and therefore the standing of the dollar vs. other global currencies. The Fed has nothing to do with that.2. War artificially inflates the economy like a sugar highFine, but since when does the Fed have control of the nation's war powers? Maybe I missed something; it happens occasionally.3. The 'Philosophical' Case for ending the FedI quote, at length:"The moral argument against the Fed should be simple, and it would be in a moral society. (p.149) "Congress though, is a reflection of the people. If the problem were seen as a moral problem and people were to demand morality in money from their representatives in government, the process would end. But the people endorse the system because they have requested and expect government to provide benefits that can’t be provided any other way. (p.150) "When times are good and the benefits are being enjoyed, no one is much interested in breaking up the party or worrying about morality in money. The Fed encourages irresponsible accumulation of personal debt. People live beyond their means with the help of an expansionist monetary policy. They trade their futures for the present, neglecting the need to save in order to spend more and more. In this sense the Fed is the ultimate promoter of consumerism and living for the present. This amounts to a terrible cultural distortion in which short-term thinking wins out over long-term planing." (p. 151)So this is a lot of what my "STRAWMAN" was referencing, i.e. "Congress, though, is a reflection of the people...." So, you know, EXACTLY what I was talking about. Reference my earlier "STRAWMAN" post for discussion of this 'point'."The Fed encourages irresponsible accumulation of personal debt."Why? How? Because Ron Paul says they do? This is as specious an argument as I have ever seen. The Fed in no way whatsoever concerns themselves with the personal spending habits of the American consumer. Blaming the Fed for the culture of consumerism in this country is PATENTLY ABSURD BOOGEYMANism. There's no proof, there's no way to quantify what he's saying. It's his personal opinion which has no basis in reality. HIS PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY does not gel with the notion of a group of experts controlling the nation's money supply. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT IS AN INHERENTLY FLAWED SYSTEM. The mind of Ron Paul is not an absolute arbiter or what is and what is not correct. His argument for ending the Fed is essentially: I DON'T LIKE IT. Congrats. The expansion of the economy in the hundred years since the Fed's creation disagrees with you.4. Monetary policy was accommodative for too long, resulting in the real estate and credit bubbles of the mid 2000sThe steep rise in housing prices relative to personal income should have been a major red flag to all economists that the growth of the housing market was unsustainable. I don't disagree with this. I would, however, argue that monetary policy had less to do with it than the Ron Pauls of the world would lead people to believe. What had much more to do with it was the nonregulation of mortgage lending, i.e. subprime mortgages were created en masse with no lender taking responsibility for any of the loans, but instead bundling them up, taking their cut and passing them off to investors. The Fed does not regulate commerce. Congress is supposed to do that.5. The Fed creates boom and bust cycles and eliminating the Fed would end these cyclesThis another great one where you are asked to not look at history but merely trust in Ron Paul that it is so. The U.S. in the 1800s (especially late-1800s) experienced MASSIVE shocks of deflation and inflation. Prices of goods were actually LOWER in 1914 than they were in 1814 due to the money supply being limited to the physical supply of gold. THAT RON PAUL WISHES TO RETURN TO THIS SCENARIO IS TOTALLY INSANE LUDDITEism. Economic growth was artificially and painfully limited due to a currency which was pegged to the supply of a useless, arbitrary metal. The population continued to grow and the money supply did not increase along with it, limiting growth and creating deflationary spirals. Since the creation of the Fed we've had two major contractions, both caused by credit bubbles. The Fed's role in each is complex and not easily distilled into sound-bites (though more clear in the Great Depression, when monetary policy was too easy for too long in the 20s and then far too tight throughout the 30s), but OVERALL the economy has been MUCH more stable and as mentioned before, has expanded at a rate which is unprecedented in history.Ron Paul is a demagogue who has been predicting impending doom consistently and has been proven consistently wrong. When things are particularly bleak economically some of what he says begins to sound appealing to a wider mass audience because they're looking for a scapegoat to blame for their troubles and Ron Paul likes blaming a lot of people for a lot of things. It doesn't make his positions any more valid than they are when things are good.If this is seen as trolling, please forgive; it is not meant as such. If you think I'm off base tell me why.

[BillyPilgrim]

sam snead, my god.

[ahosang]

mk, on Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 6:54 PM, said:

Fine. It's certainly a major problem of his, though, yes, that he believes it's unconstitutional? We can agree on this?His other issues (none of which you've actually mentioned or thought to bring into any kind of discussion) include:1. Inflation and 'debasing' of the currency are disastrous for the economyIf the last 100 years of the U.S. economy, i.e. the broadest expansion of growth and employment in the history of the world resulting in the unquestionable global economic dominance of our country = disaster one really must wonder what results Ron Paul seeks to achieve. Do you agree with him that the U.S. economy since the creation of the Fed has been a disaster? Or do you think it's something that's still coming and we have to wait another hundred years or so? I'm never sure. Also, fiscal policy plays a major role in the nation's balance sheet and therefore the standing of the dollar vs. other global currencies. The Fed has nothing to do with that.2. War artificially inflates the economy like a sugar highFine, but since when does the Fed have control of the nation's war powers? Maybe I missed something; it happens occasionally.3. The 'Philosophical' Case for ending the FedI quote, at length:"The moral argument against the Fed should be simple, and it would be in a moral society. (p.149) "Congress though, is a reflection of the people. If the problem were seen as a moral problem and people were to demand morality in money from their representatives in government, the process would end. But the people endorse the system because they have requested and expect government to provide benefits that can’t be provided any other way. (p.150) "When times are good and the benefits are being enjoyed, no one is much interested in breaking up the party or worrying about morality in money. The Fed encourages irresponsible accumulation of personal debt. People live beyond their means with the help of an expansionist monetary policy. They trade their futures for the present, neglecting the need to save in order to spend more and more. In this sense the Fed is the ultimate promoter of consumerism and living for the present. This amounts to a terrible cultural distortion in which short-term thinking wins out over long-term planing." (p. 151)So this is a lot of what my "STRAWMAN" was referencing, i.e. "Congress, though, is a reflection of the people...." So, you know, EXACTLY what I was talking about. Reference my earlier "STRAWMAN" post for discussion of this 'point'."The Fed encourages irresponsible accumulation of personal debt."Why? How? Because Ron Paul says they do? This is as specious an argument as I have ever seen. The Fed in no way whatsoever concerns themselves with the personal spending habits of the American consumer. Blaming the Fed for the culture of consumerism in this country is PATENTLY ABSURD BOOGEYMANism. There's no proof, there's no way to quantify what he's saying. It's his personal opinion which has no basis in reality. HIS PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY does not gel with the notion of a group of experts controlling the nation's money supply. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT IS AN INHERENTLY FLAWED SYSTEM. The mind of Ron Paul is not an absolute arbiter or what is and what is not correct. His argument for ending the Fed is essentially: I DON'T LIKE IT. Congrats. The expansion of the economy in the hundred years since the Fed's creation disagrees with you.4. Monetary policy was accommodative for too long, resulting in the real estate and credit bubbles of the mid 2000sThe steep rise in housing prices relative to personal income should have been a major red flag to all economists that the growth of the housing market was unsustainable. I don't disagree with this. I would, however, argue that monetary policy had less to do with it than the Ron Pauls of the world would lead people to believe. What had much more to do with it was the nonregulation of mortgage lending, i.e. subprime mortgages were created en masse with no lender taking responsibility for any of the loans, but instead bundling them up, taking their cut and passing them off to investors. The Fed does not regulate commerce. Congress is supposed to do that.5. The Fed creates boom and bust cycles and eliminating the Fed would end these cyclesThis another great one where you are asked to not look at history but merely trust in Ron Paul that it is so. The U.S. in the 1800s (especially late-1800s) experienced MASSIVE shocks of deflation and inflation. Prices of goods were actually LOWER in 1914 than they were in 1814 due to the money supply being limited to the physical supply of gold. THAT RON PAUL WISHES TO RETURN TO THIS SCENARIO IS TOTALLY INSANE LUDDITEism. Economic growth was artificially and painfully limited due to a currency which was pegged to the supply of a useless, arbitrary metal. The population continued to grow and the money supply did not increase along with it, limiting growth and creating deflationary spirals. Since the creation of the Fed we've had two major contractions, both caused by credit bubbles. The Fed's role in each is complex and not easily distilled into sound-bites (though more clear in the Great Depression, when monetary policy was too easy for too long in the 20s and then far too tight throughout the 30s), but OVERALL the economy has been MUCH more stable and as mentioned before, has expanded at a rate which is unprecedented in history.Ron Paul is a demagogue who has been predicting impending doom consistently and has been proven consistently wrong. When things are particularly bleak economically some of what he says begins to sound appealing to a wider mass audience because they're looking for a scapegoat to blame for their troubles and Ron Paul likes blaming a lot of people for a lot of things. It doesn't make his positions any more valid than they are when things are good.If this is seen as trolling, please forgive; it is not meant as such. If you think I'm off base tell me why.

Good post. That's what happens when people who possess knowledge decide to share understanding. I learnt something from that post. That's why I post here. To learn and share understanding. This place however is beyond redemption because people don't want to learn, and in your case for example, people didn't want to share understanding. Anyway, thanks for the post - there is something I learnt which I want to expand on, and something which I disagree which i want to discuss. Will post a bit later.Surprised you responded sensibly, cos I had changed my profile and was ready to troll up this sh*thole until banned...

[brvheart]

mk, on Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 12:54 PM, said:

If this is seen as trolling, please forgive; it is not meant as such. If you think I'm off base tell me why.

I didn't take it as such. Thanks for the post.

[hblask]

This is a few years old, but the NAACP, which is happy to play the race card at the drop of a hat, weighs in on the Ron Paul race card.The only people still playing the race card for Ron Paul are either intellectually dishonest or just total morons. There are plenty of things to dislike about RP, but racism is absolutely not one of them.Despite that, watch for the ridiculous attacks to grow. Even the Republicans are starting to play the race card against them as their spot at the Trough of Other People's Money is threatened.

[AmScray]

mk, on Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 10:54 AM, said:

The steep rise in housing prices relative to personal income should have been a major red flag to all economists that the growth of the housing market was unsustainable.

It did. Matter of fact, plenty of people were very vocal about it. As we know, there will always be some absurd narrative to justify any position, no matter how ****ing ridiculous it is. Peoples natural desire to believe what fits into their existing worldview- rather than what most closely adheres to a robust, objective logical construct- is usually the motivator of where they come out on any given issue. With housing, the driving force behind the ideal was 30% annual gains on home values. People had enormous, practical incentive to delude themselves into believing that it would go on forever. The small handful of people who are relentlessly objective, though, saw it coming from a mile off. A lot of your post is 'narrative driven'.

[hblask]

Leading by 3 points in the latest poll.

[mk_superphone]

AmScray, on Sunday, December 18th, 2011, 6:45 PM, said:

A lot of your post is 'narrative driven'.

Yes yes, the narrative of: reality.

[CaneBrain]

hblask, on Monday, December 19th, 2011, 10:17 AM, said:

Leading by 3 points in the latest poll.

I wish you could bet on stuff like Newt Gingrich's campaign will rapidly implode.

[strategy]

CaneBrain, on Monday, December 19th, 2011, 9:26 AM, said:

I wish you could bet on stuff like Newt Gingrich's campaign will rapidly implode.

intrade, man. I linked it further up. short his nomination contract.

[akoff]

CaneBrain, on Monday, December 19th, 2011, 7:26 AM, said:

I wish you could bet on stuff like Newt Gingrich's campaign will rapidly implode.

so i just logged onto an online sportsbook i use thinking there must be some kind of line out there. Sadly there is a line for the grammy awards, Xfactor, next years ryder cup and a money line on the masters in april, soccer from around the world as well all of the normal sports and even the NY state lotto...but not Newt.my personal fav was the over/under number on ball totals for the lotto tonight, it was 100...LOL i'll take the over for -10 please...LOL.

[AmScray]

mk_superphone, on Monday, December 19th, 2011, 7:19 AM, said:

Yes yes, the narrative of: reality.

Some? Definitely.

[FCP Bob]

http://www.businessi...letters-2011-12Interesting take on Paul's racist newsletters from 20 years ago.

[hblask]

FCP Bob, on Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 6:50 PM, said:

http://www.businessi...letters-2011-12Interesting take on Paul's racist newsletters from 20 years ago.

I started writing a longer response, but the article covered most of the points. I definitely criticize Paul for not outing who is responsible for that crap. If he had fired the person immediately, this issue would be even less of a starter than it is. Either way, bringing up 20 year old newsletters not written by him, written without his knowledge, and which he instantly disavowed -- it's showing the desperation of the old guard to protect their place at the trough.Ron Paul's record on racial issues speaks for itself. There are videos on YouTube of him defending equal rights and trying to eliminate unjust sentencing laws. This crap won't stick except for people who are looking for any excuse to keep government big, and they wouldn't vote for him anyway.